Abstract
This paper explores the specific characteristics of social interaction during an English language based task in the primary classroom, and the mediational role of the computer in structuring collaboration when compared to a non-computer mode of task presentation. 120 seven and nine year old boys and girls completed a computer and non-computer task, involving the joint resolution of similar language based problems, working in equal ability boy-boy, girl-girl or boy-girl partnerships. Each session was videotaped and the social interaction of the pairs of children categorised. All children were found to offer significantly more suggestions and engage more frequently in reciprocated eye contact when the task was presented as a computer activity. During the non-computer task children employed significantly more descriptions, explanations and declaratives. The mediational role of the computer was also observed in relation to gender issues. When collaboration broke down in mixed gender pairs, boys used specific dominating styles of interaction in the computer task (stating intentions, issuing instructions and rejecting partner’s ideas without justification), whereas girls demonstrated the same dominating styles when collaboration broke down during the non-computer task. The findings support and further extend the results of previous research, and their implications are discussed in relation to collaborative work with computers in the primary classroom.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Clark, H.H., & Schaefer, E.F. (1989). Contributing to discourse.Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294.
Crook, C. (1991). Computers in the zone of proximal development: Implications for evaluation.Computers in Education, 17, 81–91.
Crook, C. (1994).Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
Crook, C. (1999). Computers in the community of the classroom. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 102–117). London: Routledge.
Culley, L. (1988). Girls, boys and computers.Educational Studies, 14, 3–8.
Dawes, L. (1997). Teaching talk. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.),Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 189–195). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Elliott, C.D., Murray, D.J., & Pearson, L.S. (1983).British Ability Scales. NFER-Nelson.
Finlayson, H., & Cook, D. (1998). The value of passive software in young children’s collaborative work. In M. Monteith (Ed.),IT for learning enhancement (pp. 106–120). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Eisher, E. (1992). Characteristics of children’s talk at the computer and its relationship to the computer software.Language and Education, 7, 97–114.
Fitzpatrick, H., & Hardman, M. (in press 2000). Mediated activity in the primary school classroom: Girls, boys and computers.Learning and Instruction.
Forman, E., & Cazden, C.B. (1985). Exploring perspectives in education: The value of peer interaction. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.),Culture, communication and cognition (pp. 323–347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glissov, P. (1992).Social and motivational aspects of secondary school pupils’ computer use, with particular reference to gender issues. Unpublished PhD thesis., Glasgow Polytechnic, Glasgow, Scotland.
Golay-Schilter, D., Perret, J.-F., Perret-Clermont, A., & De Guglielmo, F. (1999). Sociocognitive interactions in a computerised industrial task: Are they productive? In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 118–143). London: Routledge.
Howe, C., Tolmie, A., & Anderson, A. (1991). Information technology and group work in physics.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 133–143.
Howe, C., & Tolmie, A. (1999). Productive interaction in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning in science. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 24–45). London: Routledge.
Hoyles, C., Healy, L., & Sutherland, R. (1991). Patterns of discussion between pupil pairs in computer and non-computer environments.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 210–228.
Huguet, P., Chambres, P., & Blaye, A. (1994). Interactive learning: Does social presence explain the results? In H.C. Foot, C.J. Howe, A. Anderson, A.K. Tolmie, & D.A. Warden, (Eds.),Group and interactive learning (pp. 437–444). Southampton, Boston: Computational Mechanics.
Keogh, T. (1993).Of mice and men: An analysis of gender differences in children’s engagement with an English language task presented on paper and on a computer. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
Keogh, T., Barnes, P., Joiner, R., & Littleton, K. (2000). Gender, pair composition and computer versus paper presentations of an English language task.Educational Psychology, 20, 1.
Kutnick, P. (1997). Group-based problem solving: The effects of group composition and social skills on a cognitive joint task.Educational Research, 39, 135–147.
Littleton, K. & Light, P. (1997). Situational effects in computer-based problem solving. In L. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.),Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. ???-???). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag.
Littleton, K. (1999) Productivity through interaction: An overview. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 179–194). London: Routledge.
Makrakis, V. (1993). Gender and computing in schools in Japan: The “We can, I can’t” paradox.Computers in Education 2, 222–241.
McAteer, E., Anderson, T., Orr, M., Demissie, A., & Woherem, E. (1991). Computer assisted learning and group work: The design of an evaluation.Computers in Education, 17, 41–47.
Muller, A.A., & Perlmutter, M. (1985). Pre-school children’s problem-solving interactions at computers and jigsaw puzzles.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 173–186.
Papert, S. (1980).Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books: New York.
Säljö, R. (1999). Learning as the use of tools: A sociocultural perspective on the human-technology link. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 144–161). London: Routledge.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981).The Psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Teasley, S.D., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Constructing a joint problem space: The computer as a tool for sharing knowledge. In S.P. Lajoie & S.J. Derry (Eds.),Computers as cognitive tools (pp. 229–258). Hillsdale, New York: Erlbaum.
Tolmie, A., & Howe, C. (1993). Gender and dialogue in secondary school physics.Gender and Education, 5, 191–209.
Underwood, G., McCaffrey, M., & Underwood, J. (1990). Gender differences in a cooperative computer-based language task.Educational Research, 32, 16–21.
Underwood, J., & Underwood G. (1999). Task effects on co-operative and collaborative learning with computers. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.),Learning with computers: Analysing productive interaction (pp. 10–23). London: Routledge.
Warden, D., Christie, D., Fitzpatrick, H., Reid, K., & Cheyne, B. (1999),Let’s be positive: An intervention programme to promote children’s prosocial competence. Poster presented at the British Psychological Society Developmental Section Nottingham Conference, September 6–9th 1999.
Watson, M. (1997). Improving group work at computers. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.),Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 226–238). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Wegerif, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (Eds.). (1997).Computers and talk in the primary classroom. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fitzpatrick, H., Hardman, M. Primary school children’s collaboration: Task presentation and gender issues. Eur J Psychol Educ 15, 375–387 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172982
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172982